- Micheal Lancey and Jim Larkin have, going strictly by the letter of the law, not done the right thing by putting out the information about their subpoena. They not only put themselves in a difficult position but also the readers who for no fault of their own have become a part of this tangle.
- The fact that they clearly spelt out at the beginning of the story the legal implication for the reader shows a willful stance being taken – ‘civil disobedience’, as they say themselves.
From the point of view of an outsider, my take is that what Micheal and Jim have done is not ethically wrong. There is a judgement to be made, from time to time, which is beyond the confines of legal and generally accepted norms in the larger good. If the genesis of all this is the ‘exposing’ of Maricopa Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s real estate dealings which led to ‘revenge and vindictive response’ then Micheal and Jim are possibly right in continuing to use the ‘public medium’ to keep the issue and case in the open. The intention here does not seem to be malicious or for personal gain but to bring to the public the true picture and hence, possibly, on the right side of reporting ethics.
-
Recent Comments
Eric on Pay Per View Journalism Michael on Pay Per View Journalism Jess on Self-Made Reporters Jess on Pakistan’s fight for pre… wolffethics on un-full disclosure
No Comments Yet